Weekly Photo Assignment #4 - “Green”
Photographers:
Anne Marie, Erik, Paul, Robert, Stephanie, Todd
Here's the photos from our 4th weekly photo assignment. The subject for this one is, "Green". Click the photographer's names (above) to view the images.
If you're not sure what this weekly assignment thing is, check out assignment #1 for a little explanation.
Remember... comments, critiques, and constructive criticism are always welcome.
Tags: Green, Weekly Photo Assignments
Comments
Great photos everyone!
Two questions come to mind when looking at this set...
The first is, what does it really mean to do a photo about a specific topic? What I mean by that is, if the topic wasn't stated here would strangers be able to guess the topic, or would they think our photos have something to do with plants and animals? When doing a photo about, "Green", is it enough to simply have something green in the photo, or is something more required to accurately portray the subject?
The second is, when is a photograph no longer a photograph? This one is specifically about Stephanie's. Is it still a photo, or is it something else?
Comments are welcome...
Great work everyone.
Erik, I especially love your clovers.
In reference to Paul's question #1:
1. When I heard "green," my immediate thought was "take a picture of something green." But in retrospect, green can be anything at all-something that makes you think of green, an emotion the color green creates when you see it, or perhaps something environmentally friendly. (I could have taken a photo of a hybrid car). Of course it would need an explanation. We are tredding into the artists' territory in which freedom of expression plays a large role. We can write or photograph something with an intent that no one in the world may comprehend except for ourselves.
For me, starting a photo shoot with the theme of “green†meant hauling out everything I owned that was green. Yes, I dragged Kermit out as well but he didn’t work out as well for me as he did for Todd (though Todd went the extra mile and pulled his head off his body which I would never be able to do). I started shooting Zira and Cornelius because their outfits are green, and because they are very organic-looking.
After looking at my first round of images I started to think about other aspects of the theme “greenâ€. Like writing fiction, the theme may not be obviously evident but after pondering you begin to see things that you didn’t initially realize were there. “Green†can symbolize greed, envy, or something young, new and fresh (naïve) or raw; its meaning runs the gamut between these two extremes, which is extremely interesting if you have an image that can be interpreted as having elements of both extremes. The chimps looked like young lovers with troubles; Cornelius’ sideburns looked very Heathcliff-ish - so I decided to go that route.
The question about when a photograph is no longer a photograph is a tough one. If I saw this image without knowing the background it would not be necessarily evident that it began life as a photo. My goal in shooting toys is to have them not look like toys in the finished image. I want it to appear like I’ve captured in time an expression that has just flitted across their faces. But I also wanted to try something more than just blur the image as I did in “Yellow†(which was done in-camera). A person’s response to an image is their own (based on experiences, etc): it’s a photograph if I want to call it a photograph and something else if I want to call it something else. Whatever the viewer calls it is their choice, too. I and the viewer may each change our minds tomorrow.
I included the text because I love text on images and because I thought it would help clarify the intent; and because, rightly or wrongly, I thought it would be amusing.
Todd pulled off his head? Bastard! Poor little Kermie. :(
I think Robert and Stephanie raise good points / questions about intent vs. perception. Do some photographs require an explanation to make their intent clear? If they do, what does that say about the image... Is it less successful, or does it matter? In other words, does an image (or group of images) have to accurately relay the topic, without an explanation, to be considered successful?
Also, how much of the responsibility is on the photographer vs. the viewer to relay the intent? Should things be glaringly obvious, or is it up to the viewer to give it more thought? As a practical example, I would bring up Photo Assignment #3. I thought my image was fairly straight-forward, but Todd later told me that he didn't understand it without my explanation. Was my image unclear, or did Todd not give it enough thought?
As for Stephanie's, I think it is highly successful at NOT looking like toys, as she intended. I think they do come across as more alive. But, I don't agree with her when she said, "it’s a photograph if I want to call it a photograph and something else if I want to call it something else." Personally, I would say it's not a photograph, simply because it looks to much like an illustration now (to me). Not that that's a bad thing. I'm not implying that it is somehow wrong. I'm just bringing up the question about it still being a photo or not. I'm also not totally convinced that the image required the extra post-processing to achieve her goal. I'll bring up a photographer named, Brian McCarty, as an example. He's done some brilliant photos of toys that seem to show genuine emotion.
Anyone else have thoughts on this?
"Do some photographs require an explanation to make their intent clear?"
I submit that art need not require any explanation. I think Steph has raised an excellent dialogue by simply taking a picture. And, now we are all conversing about her perception of the topic, and more importantly art in general.
For the purposes of our project, perhaps an explanation would enhance the photography. But I have never heard of a photographer, artist, writer, etc. include a statement of intent with their work. The art form should stand alone. However, raising a dialog as Steph did is a different story. She has succeeded because she has raised questions, forced the audience to consider her work in a different light.
By the way, thank you for letting me participate, this is great fun. I may not make the next deadline, i am going out of town. But I will try.
I think that any work of art or illustration can be accompanied by an explanation - even a detailed one, but at that point, the explanation becomes part of the larger statement to a certain degree and should be taken into account as such. As a writer, I particulary like the interweaving of text and visual images since combined they can hit the viewer emotionally and intellectually on two different levels like the combining of the words and the music to a song.
One of my favorite scientific books is a taxonomy of Sonoran plants on the Papago reservation that was an odd combination of scientific descriptions of the plants, the Papago legends surrounding them and illustrations done by a classically trained Japanese watercolor artist. The scientific descriptions established the plants firmly in the real world, the Papago legends gave them a spiritual significance that impirical science never could and the ethereal, almost abstract, paintings gave them a life that neither precise scientific illustrations or mere words could. The result of the odd combination was much stronger and deeper than any one of its elements would have been alone.
Seeing Kermit's head with all those French wine corks gives new meaning to the name 'Kermit the Frog' :)
Regarding whether or not Steph’s image qualifies as a photograph or not is a matter of personal definition. A purist may argue that a true photograph should not be “altered†in any way. These days, practically any serious photographer will alter their photographs using a combination of lenses and filters during the exposure, and image enhancements on the computer. The question is how much computer manipulation is tolerated by the viewer before it leaves their personal realm of “photographyâ€.
Paul pointed out to me another weekly photo assignment site. It’s a very popular site and they have gone as far as creating multiple sets of rules specifically governing how much editing will be allowed for one assignment versus another. The fact that they have created such specific guidelines indicates there is a lot of passion in the photography community regarding what acceptable or not. http://www.dpchallenge.com/challenge_rules.php
For me, I really like Steph’s image, however I would not necessarily identify it as a photograph unless I was told that it originated from a camera. Therefore, I would probably avoid using the term “photograph†just like I would for many of Andy Warhol’s art icons that were created from photographs. I would however label this type of art “photographic.â€
Some abstract subjects will not look like a photograph even without any manipulation. Therefore, I would suggest that being able to recognize an image as a photograph should not be a criteria to determine if it should be called a photograph.
One final note. Thanks, Paul for pointing out Brian McCarthy’s site. These are awesome toy pictures, however they do mostly look like toys placed in real environments. Therefore, if Steph’s intent was to have an image that doesn’t look like a toy, then I would say her process achieves that better than Brian’s.
I totally agree that Brian's images definitely look like toys. I was just pointing out that you can have them look like toys, and still convey an emotional quality normally attributed to people. I'm not sure, but it sounded like Steph's decision to have them not look like toys, was linked to her desire to have them convey a feeling. I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.
I think either approach works. I was just offering other options.
Oh, and I agree with Robert... "this is great fun".
so for my two cents...todd...no animals are supposed to be harmed in the taking of these photographs....please put kermit back together...
as for robert's comment "but I have never heard of a photographer, artist, writer, etc. include a statement of intent with their work. The art form should stand alone..." ...i have seen many times where an artist describes intent...(for instance a 'manifesto' can be an artistic explanation of a body of work or viewpoint) however i am often bored by a wordy explanation...i believe if the viewer can see the intent and additionally bring other meanings and insight into the work...then it is truly successful...if the artist's statement serves to overtly direct the reading of the piece...well then maybe the piece is not quite there yet...but on its way?
for steph's work this week...i am on the fence...i am not sure the post-processing of the piece fully relays steph's intent for ....."captur(ing) in time an expression that has just flitted across their faces"...(for me it seems more of a static state; not instaneous)...but i do think the image falls in a curious position within the scope of 'photography', definately it falls under 'the artistic image'...i'm not sure then how to place it in relation to 'photography'...my lack of 'photography history' is my problem...but i just want to commend steph...she has produced some challenging images to date...that have started this great thread of debate
and just an overall thanks...i am really enjoying this discussion with all of you...
And now that I think about it, perhaps green has taken on a new meaning for Todd (rancor). Did he get drunk on wine and express green as a subconscious repressed anger towards muppets in general? I for one never trusted that Gonzo. Maybe Kermit wasn't so innocent. Always chasing after Miss Piggy and all.
Who are we to judge Todd when Kermit's character is in question? He may have deserved decapitation.
One last thing about Steph's image... I think it was a success in that it definitely sparked conversation. Anne Marie and I ended up talking more about it last night even after we went to bed. She said something that I think you would like, Steph... She said it gave her the impression of a movie poster, depicting a climactic scene. While you weren't specifically going for a movie poster look, her comment about "climactic scene" does seem very much inline with your intent. Nice job!
[...] This image is very similar to the one I used in our Weekly Photo Assignment #4, but I thought it was a good image to show while talking about a lens I bought recently. It’s the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II. It’s the cheapest (and lightest) lens that Canon makes. You can easily find it for about $80 USD. [...]
Post a comment